Tweet
Took them all a while to ask mike barrett if they could examine his wordprocessor when they did and he informed them that he had just wiped the discs clean they should have ran a mile but oh no they decided to plod along and try and make a few quid.
-
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth -
I suppose I should ask "the ether" if it is true that Mike Barrett did, in fact, say that he had wiped the discs when he was asked to produce them, as pinkmoon states. Does anyone know?Comment
-
It seems that Mike Barrett's 'research' notes are to be published in a forthcoming book entitled "The Diary of Jack the Ripper 25 Years of Mystery: Research and Conclusion" by Robert Anderson, Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, Chris Jones, James Johnston and Richard C. Cobb.
That's more like it!
Anyone would think that my recent posts have been no more than a marketing stunt to ramp up interest.
So I look forward to receiving my well-earned percentage!!Comment
-
-
Yes, David. And I explained to you at the time that the "backed up to the hilt" bit referred to the Battlecrease evidence, which had informed, and continues to inform, Keith's position on the diary's provenance. You misunderstood it above to refer to my observation [hardly a 'notion'] that his position had remained unchanged, which you went on to claim was 'clearly no more than an assumption' on my part.Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
Again, I fail to see what evidence I could have presented, which you would have believed. You could not have made it any clearer by this point that my word alone wasn't good enough!The reason I said that it was "clearly" no more than an assumption was because in two posts, after I had asked for evidence that Keith Skinner still held the same view in 2016 as he did in 2007, none whatsoever had been presented.
You also said:
"It is quite wrong of you to link the fact that I am unconvinced that Keith Skinner holds this opinion today (for which I do happen to have a good reason for saying so, but which I am not prepared to elaborate on in this forum)..."
I can't help that, David. As I already pointed out, it was Keith himself who picked up on your own words ["...which I am not prepared to elaborate on in this forum"] and realised you must have got the wrong end of the stick from your private email correspondence with him. I don't make a habit of checking with him to see if he is reading the message boards, but I do keep up with his current position on the diary, as his co-author. That's how I knew for a fact that it hadn't changed, as I explained to you at the time. I only know when he is following the boards if he emails me with his own observations, which is what he did on seeing your words. He emailed you to explain why it was no mere assumption on my part, and emailed me to let me know he had done so.Again, I said no more than I was "unconvinced", which was true, and also that I happened to have good reason for being unconvinced, which I did. I did not imply that I had any private contact with anyone.
Oh come on, David. I expressly stated exactly that, but you remained unconvinced until Keith expressly confirmed it for you privately.It was not expressly stated that Keith's position hadn't changed...
You clearly thought you had good reason at the time, but equally clearly you are no longer 'unconvinced', thanks to Keith seeing this and stepping in.I had good reason to be unconvinced that Keith Skinner still held to his 2007 view today.
You didn't 'expressly state' it, David, but then I never 'expressly stated' that you did, so it was an odd thing for you to write. The fact remains that it was you who alerted Keith with your reference to something you were "not prepared to elaborate on in this forum", which would imply private information to any reader who hadn't nodded off by then, and it certainly gave the nod to Keith, who correctly identified it as such.Perhaps more importantly in respect of this thread, when I said in this thread that "I'm absolutely certain I have never once mentioned on this forum being in contact with Keith Skinner" that was absolutely correct.
I don't know why you have such a problem with this in any case, now everyone reading along knows for a fact - thanks to you alerting Keith in that post and giving him the chance to correct a misapprehension - that you had been in contact with him.
May I take it you will not be helping to make Mike's research notes available to your readers, despite all the fuss you have made about them?
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 09-05-2017, 08:55 AM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Great news, David! Well done for your contributions here to get the ruddy things published. I'm sure you will be thrilled to bits when you finally see them in all their glory.Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
I passed the Town Hall today. It has scaffolding up on the front. Not sure what's going on. First time I've seen work going on at the Town Hall and I've lived here around 23 years, and been coming here all my life (50 years) as my father's family come from the area.Originally posted by caz View Post
If I can get to The Mods gig and see you I'll come up and say hello if you don't mind. I've seen you in pictures so I know what you look like!These are not clues, Fred.
It is not yarn leading us to the dark heart of this place.
They are half-glimpsed imaginings, tangle of shadows.
And you and I floundering at them in the ever vainer hope that we might corral them into meaning when we will not.
We will not.Comment
-
So what evidence could anyone have presented to convince me that Keith Skinner's opinion in 2016 was the same as in 2007? It's a tough one.
Oh, hold on, they could have said that they had spoken to Keith Skinner recently and his opinion was the same. I wonder how difficult that would have been.
That would have answered my question rather than rambling on about what was said in 2007.
But despite impressions to the contrary this was NOT said on the forum until after Keith had emailed me in December.Last edited by David Orsam; 09-05-2017, 11:08 AM.Comment
-
Back onto the Diary. One thing that amuses me is that Anne's father is supposed to have given Mike the money to purchase the Word Processor (worth £399 brand new) in 1986. No-one bats an eyelid at this claim. Yet when I asked why Anne's father couldn't have given Mike the £50 to buy the Diary at auction in 1992 the idea was pooh-pooh'd as incredible!Comment
-
I wonder if the Diary Gods are going to let us see the so-called invoice which proves that Mike bought the Word Processor in 1986. Or does one need to rant and rave into the ether and ask what they have to hide before it is produced?Comment
-
Anyone who ordered this . Received it yet?Comment
-
I know mine was shipped yesterday. Hoping it'll be there when I get home this evening...Originally posted by eddie1 View PostComment
-
Mine was shipped mon and still hasn't argued yet. Hopefully tomorow nowComment
-
Did you get any notification that it had been sent. I haven't received any communication from the minute I ordered. Never got a receipt email either ?Originally posted by StevenOwl View PostComment
-
I did - Adam Wood emailed me to check my address before shipping as he couldn't find one with my order.Originally posted by eddie1 View PostComment
Comment